HUFFPOLLSTER: Trump Supporters Are Angrier And More Risk-Accepting Than Clinton Supporters

But those who are “frustrated” view Clinton more positively than Trump.

Profiles of voters show two ways that Trump supporters differ from Clinton supporters. National polls don't agree on the state of the general election race. And a survey of Native Americans finds that most don’t think the term ‘Redskin’ is offensive. This is HuffPollster for Friday, May 20, 2016.

FRUSTRATED AMERICANS ARE LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT TRUMP THAN ANGRY AMERICANS - Amy Walter: "Americans aren’t actually any angrier at government today than they were a year ago, or even four years ago. In fact, according to data from the Pew Research Center, the percent of Americans who say they are 'angry at the federal government' has remained rather consistent over the last six years...'So, why the obsession with anger? Well, like just about everything else we talk about this year, it has an association with Donald J. Trump….[I]f you interview or focus on only 'angry' people, you get a very biased sample of the overall electorate and who they are likely to support….[T]hose who were the most likely to think Trump would be great were angry voters and those who thought he’d be terrible were 'content' or 'frustrated' voters...In other words, people who are angry with government (21 percent of all voters) have their candidate - Trump. People who are content with government (20 percent of all voters) have theirs - Clinton. But, for the vast majority who are frustrated, Clinton has a small edge. Or more accurately, those who are frustrated with government view Trump more negatively than they do Clinton." [Cook]

Voters who accept risks may be more likely to back Trump - Lynn Vavreck: "Throughout the primaries, Donald Trump has attempted to make the choice about what we’ve lost: jobs, pride and greatness. Hillary Clinton wants people to think about how far we’ve come. It’s a classic divide: gains versus losses...Research has illustrated the way people’s decisions over fixed choices change in light of context. In times of gains, people tend to be risk-averse. In times of loss, they tend to be risk-accepting. This particular dichotomy is relevant to 2016 as Mr. Trump attempts to convince voters, through his rhetoric, that we are in an era of loss. Even his campaign slogan, 'Make America Great Again,' invites people to remember a time when we had something that is now gone. If he is successful at framing the choice, people may be more likely to take a risk on an outsider with no previous political experience...Mrs. Clinton, should she become the nominee, will attempt the opposite. She will try to convince voters that we are in a time of gains and recovery...She will attempt to paint Mr. Trump as a risk not worth taking." [NYT]

Republicans are warming to Trump, but many still aren’t happy - Frank Newport: "As a number of Republican Party leaders express dissatisfaction with Donald Trump being their party's presumptive nominee, rank-and-file Republicans have become more positive about the billionaire businessman. Over the last seven days, Trump's favorable rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents has reached 66%, the highest since Gallup began tracking him nine months ago....But Trump's image is substantially more negative than the images of his predecessors at this point in their campaigns, and half of Republicans say they wish someone else was their party's nominee. The relative lack of enthusiasm for Trump among his own party may not be his biggest challenge to winning the presidency -- twice as many Americans overall have an unfavorable (60%) as a favorable (34%) opinion of him, reflecting strongly negative views among independents and Democrats. His likely competitor, Hillary Clinton, however, also has a negative image among all Americans, at 39% favorable and 55% unfavorable." [Gallup]

HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL! - You can receive this daily update every weekday morning via email! Just click here, enter your email address, and click "sign up." That's all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

THE ELECTION IS ALREADY CAUSING FIGHTS - HuffPollster: "If you hadn’t already noticed that this election is divisive, here’s some proof: more than one-third of Americans have already gotten into a fight with a friend, family member or coworker about the campaign, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds. Twenty-six percent of Americans say they’ve argued with a friend about the elections this year, 23 percent have argued with a family member, while 11 percent have gotten into a fight with a coworker….One reason for the conflict is that a lot of people are honestly baffled by what the other side sees in their chosen candidate. Thirty-nine percent of Americans can’t understand why anyone would vote for Hillary Clinton, while 42 percent can’t understand why anyone would pick Donald Trump….Unsurprisingly, members of both parties have a difficult time seeing across the aisle. Sixty-five percent of Democrats say they can’t understand why someone would vote for Trump, while 72 percent of Republicans don’t get why anyone would vote for Clinton." [HuffPost]  

KEEP CALM AND LOOK AT THE POLLING AVERAGES - A set of newly-released national polls this week offer considerably different snapshots of the general election. A Wednesday night Fox News poll gave Trump a 3-point lead over Clinton, while a new CBS/New York Times poll has Clinton up by 6,, Ipsos/Reuters has her winning by 5, and Rasmussen has Trump up 5 points. This is exactly why HuffPollster recommends looking at the polling averages -- as do Norman Ornstein and Alan Abramowitz, who write: “In this highly charged election, it’s no surprise that the news media see every poll like an addict sees a new fix. That is especially true of polls that show large and unexpected changes. Those polls get intense coverage and analysis, adding to their presumed validity….voters and analysts alike should beware of polls that show implausible, eye-catching results. Look for polling averages… Everyone needs to be better at reading polls — to first look deeper into the quality and nature of a poll before assessing the results.” [NYT]

NATIVE AMERICANS DON’T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT ‘WASHINGTON REDSKINS’ - John Woodrow Cox, Scott Clement and Theresa Vargas: "Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker. The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations. Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word 'Redskin' was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name. The results — immediately celebrated by team owner Daniel Snyder and denounced by prominent Native American leaders — could make it that much harder for anti-name activists to pressure Redskins officials, who are already using the poll as further justification to retain the moniker." [WashPost

FRIDAY'S 'OUTLIERS' - Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

-Harry Enten doubts that Trump supporters are lying to pollsters. [538]

-Charles Franklin looks at how national pollsters compare to the poll average for the general election. [Medium]

-YouGov finds that education is an indicator of how Brits will vote on the EU referendum. [YouGov]

-Two-thirds of Americans say they are not financially stable enough to be able to cover a $1000 crisis. [AP]

-Nearly 6 in 10 millennials have never been married. [Gallup]

-Seventy-two percent of Americans have used some type of shared or on-demand online service. [Pew]

-Leah Libresco finds that the DC metro catches fire on average four times a week. [538]